I interviewed him about gender roles, power, why men earn more, and campus rape.

Marty Nemko: You're most well-known for your book The Myth of Male Power, just out in a new e-book edition. Many people think men have the power: Look at the Senate and CEO rosters. How would you respond?

Warren Farrell: A small percentage of men have major institutional power but across the full population, real power is about having choices. The women’s movement has made it socially acceptable for a mom to work full-time, stay home with the child full-time, or work part-time. That’s as it should be. Alas, it’s not as acceptable for a man to work part-time, let alone be a full-time parent. Mr. Mom is still a term of derision.

Marty Nemko: But men earn more. Isn’t that power?

Warren Farrell: Many men still buy into a false definition of power: feeling obligated to earn money that someone else spends while we die sooner—5.2 years sooner. That’s not power. That’s being a prisoner of the need for love and approval.

Marty Nemko: In your book, Why Men Earn More, you report that the statistic that women earn 77 cents for each dollar a man earns for the same work is very misleading. Can you give an example as to why?

Warren Farrell: Women who have never been married and never had children earn 17% morethan never-married men that have never had children, even when education and years worked are equal. Men don’t earn more than women. Dads earn more than moms. Why? When a child is born, a mom is more likely to divide her labor between work and home, earning less at work. A dad is more likely to increase his hours at work—or work two jobs—often taking jobs he likes less that pay more.

Marty Nemko: In Why Men Earn More, you write, “The road to high pay is a toll road.” Are you suggesting that high pay and power can be inversely correlated?

Warren Farrell: Yes. For many dads, the road to high pay is not about power; it’s about his hope to make his children’s life better than his. It’s about giving his wife a better life. And to get that higher pay, he often has to forgo work he'd rather do. For example, he might prefer to be a teacher or a creative but to better support his family, he accepts a long-hours, high-stress, technical, travel-intensive, often soulless management position.

Marty Nemko: In your recent Reddit Highlighted Conversation, you cite statistics so startling that some would question their veracity. Would you provide the source for:

This is the first time in U.S. history that our sons will have less education than their dads.

Boys' suicide rate goes from equal to girls at age 9 to five times(!) girls' in their twenties.

More U.S. male military were killed by suicide in one year than were killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in all years combined.

Warren Farrell: Yes. Boys having less education than their dads is from the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), “Education at a Glance,” 2010, Table A1.3a

The boy-girl suicide rate is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 58,1, 2009, and Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), 2010.

The U.S. military suicide rate data is from the DOD, uncovered by CBS, in Armen Keteyian, “Suicide Epidemic Among Veterans.” CBS News, November 13, 2007.

Marty Nemko: The subtitle of your book The Myth of Male Power is: Why Men are the Disposable Sex. How are men the disposable sex?

Warren Farrell: Virtually all societies that survived did so based on their ability to train their sons to be disposable—disposable in war, disposable at work.

Marty Nemko: That’s a strong statement. What’s your evidence?

Warren Farrell: The evidence is ubiquitous. 92 percent of workplace deaths occur to men, jobs few women would take: oil rig workers, long-haul truckers, roofers, coal miners. Yet there isn't the political will to create regulations that would afford them more protection for these workers. Meanwhile, when women have a less life-threatening deficit, for example, underrepresentation of women in engineering, there's massive expenditure to redress. Although male-only draft registration is a violation of both the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause and the 5th Amendment’s due process clause, it is so unconsciously accepted it isn’t even questioned. Only men can serve in direct combat so 98 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan deaths were men.

Marty Nemko: Is the fact that men die 5.2 years younger than women another example of male disposability?

Warren Farrell: It is the combination of facts like men dying 5.2 years younger than women—or men dying sooner from all ten of the ten leading causes of death, plus the fact that we nevertheless have seven federal offices of women’s health and none of men’s health that together reflect the psychology of indifference toward male disposability. Similarly, men over the age of 85 commit suicide 1350 percent as frequently as women over 85. Virtually no one knows this. If women over 85 committed suicide 1350 percent as often than men, it would be used as the quintessential example of our undervaluing of women. We seem to care more about saving whales than saving males.

Marty Nemko: You said men are indirectly disposable as dads. How do you mean?

Warren Farrell: In a divorce, if the mother doesn’t want the father to be equally involved, the apriori assumption is that she's right. Men have to fight in court for that right, and that's expensive.Unless he’s rich, he’s disposable.

Marty Nemko: What are your thoughts about the current focus on campus rape?

Warren Farrell: The issue first should be addressed before kids get to college. For example, we may need to encourage our daughters to take the initiative when they want physical intimacy, not just to say when they don’t. Our society strives for equality but few experts are asking women to share the responsibility for taking the initiative in sex, thereby risking rejection. During adolescence, women are the more mature sex. It’s unfair to expect guys to assume 90 percent of the burden of sexual rejection.

Marty Nemko: What should happen at college?

Warren Farrell: First, make the law the last resort. The law is binary: guilty/not guilty. Sex is nuanced and more nonverbal than verbal. Those nuances have evolved over millennia. A slight change in eye contact means everything in a male-female encounter but would be laughed at in court. And if a grievance is filed, we should not presume guilt. Alas, some accusations are false.

Marty Nemko: What about workshops at college?

Warren Farrell: Yes but both sexes should be walking a mile in each other’s moccasins.

Marty Nemko: You’ve done such trainings, right?

Warren Farrell: Yes. I used to tell college audiences, “Every woman is in a beauty contest every day of her life.” I then invited all the guys on stage to experience that. I had those guys wear bathing suits and had the women be the judges. The guys were stunned at being unseen for their integrity, intelligence, or values. They felt objectified.

Marty Nemko: What did you do to help the young women walk a mile in the guys’ moccasins?

Warren Farrell: I had the women “ask-out” the guys they were most attracted to on a 20-minute “date.” Some did what they criticize men for, for example, lying to get an attractive guy to go out with them. Others went after a less attractive guy to reduce the chance of getting rejected. The guys totally identified with that.

Marty Nemko: What was the outcome of those workshops?

Warren Farrell: Greater compassion for the other sex’s vulnerability, and I formed hundreds of men and women’s groups so they would continue to deepen their compassion after I left campus.

Marty Nemko: Was there any concrete evidence it reduced campus rape?

Warren Farrell: I asked campus sponsors to let me know if any of the workshop participants later were involved in a date rape accusation. Although I had worked with 20,000 students in hundreds of colleges, not one incident was reported.

Marty Nemko: Do you still do those workshops?

Warren Farrell: As political correctness set into the colleges’ psyches, college programs shifted to emphasizing only men understanding women. It would be wiser for programs to help both sexes better understand each other. We don’t need a women’s movement blaming men, nor a men’s movement blaming women. We need a gender liberation movement. We need both sexes walking a mile in each other’s moccasins.

Dr. Nemko’s nine books are available. You can reach career and personal coach Marty Nemko at mnemko@comcast.net (link sends e-mail).

The entire problem is the white male's fault. Every
one else is a helpless dependent child.
The solution is the elimination of the white Christian
male. Then, white females and minority men (And other
women) can resume their peaceful loving existence.
The very incarnation of evil-the white male-should be
wiped out.

in these conversations about male disposability is who is seen to be to blame for this. Men work on oil rigs, are long haul truckers and combatants in war which means they're disposable. It isn't as if women set up these scenarios. Men hire men to work off-shore. Men start wars that other men fight. As a woman, it breaks my heart for the mothers (and fathers) of the men who die in combat. I don't know one mother who has lost a son who hasn't grieved his loss enormously.

So, I really don't get who this man is trying to blame with his rhetoric.

Why does anyone need to be blamed? How can you even blame individuals (or even a subset of the population) for the ways in which cultural norms have developed. If you really feel the need to pin blame somewhere, pin it on thousands of years of accumulated human history.

Are you asking me why? Because that is my question. When men talk about "men's issues" they bring up the fact that more men die of this and that...don't live as long as women, etc. as if it is the fault of women. It is an observation that leaves me wondering "what is your point?" There is no answer other than to have women do those same jobs and other than the off-shore drilling, women do, just not in the numbers men do. These jobs also pay a damn site better than being in the secretarial pool.

I'm genuinely asking who are they blaming and why? Women didn't set up the system. Men did. If you're complaining about how bad men have it, it mainly falls on deaf ears (of women) because we don't see you as having it that bad, at least in the aggregate.

Yes, there are some shitty women out there who use men. Guess what? There are some shitty men out there who use women. Why the endless merry-go-round of who has it worse or who IS worse? Doesn't fix things.

Women wanted the right to vote. The right to own property. The right to our own bodies. We fought for RIGHTS that we didn't have. Men seem to be retaliating against women for wanting to be EQUAL at least in the eyes of the law.

Feminists only want to reinforce the female victim narrative. So, whenever a fact about men being disadvantaged comes up, they defensively start asking "Who are you trying to blame? You can't blame women, men are the ones with all the power!" It's a way of turning the conversation back to "Men have all the power".

You'll notice how Monkey goes from asking "who is this guy trying to blame" to claiming she is asking "why assign blame?".

Deflecting in this way is just one of the ways feminists maintain their perspective that everything is worse for women - they defect, ignore, or erase any disadvantages men have, then claim that men don't have disadvantages.

It's all others fault!! It's always this way in this framework with other being not good or bad individuals, but classes which are, on one side, the extreme evil which the only purpose is to oppress the other classes that are, in other hand, the incarnation of goodness.

Feminists only want to reinforce the female victim narrative. So, whenever a fact about men being disadvantaged comes up, they defensively start asking "Who are you trying to blame? You can't blame women, men are the ones with all the power!" It's a way of turning the conversation back to "Men have all the power".

You'll notice how Monkey goes from asking "who is this guy trying to blame" to claiming she is asking "why assign blame?".

Deflecting in this way is just one of the ways feminists maintain their perspective that everything is worse for women - they defect, ignore, or erase any disadvantages men have, then claim that men don't have disadvantages.

In the U.S., women have had the right to vote since 1920. Men got this earlier, in 1870, but in return were required to register for conscription. 100.000 American soldiers, almost all of them men, died in WW1 and 200.000 were wounded. 400.000 American soldiers, almost all of them men, died in WW2 and 670.000 were wounded.

Men are -still- required to register for the draft in exchange for their right to vote, and with tensions with Russia building, one might very reasonably worry about whether that draft will be called or not.

American women have been having it objectively better than American men with regards to voting for almost a century.

Roe vs Wade was over 40 years ago. Women have had 100% right to their own body since then. It is illegal in all states to circumcise a girl. I agree with this, because it is her body, her choice.

It is not just legal, but in fact common practice to circumcise boys. He does not have the right to his own body.

American women have been having it objectively better than American men with regards to the rights over their own bodies for over 40 years.

Women have had extensive rights to property for over a century. In fact, they are better protected then men are.

As a woman, they can choose to give up an unwanted child after it is born for adoption if they decide they are not "ready" to be a mother. As a man, you have no option to "opt out" of parenthood in the way that a woman does, even after the child is born (at which point "her body" doesn't factor into it whatsoever).

Men are liable for child support for the next 18 years, whether they like it or not, but women are not. As a result of this, there are 15 year old boys paying child support to their 36 year old rapists!

American women have been having it objectively better than American men with regards to rights of property for over a hundred years.

You asked who was to blame for this. I think it is illustrative that you come to ask who is to blame when the article you are replying to makes no mention of this topic.

The Men's Human Rights Movement is not seeking to find who is "to blame", nor are we seeking vengeance. Moreover, we are not about forcing women to register for the draft, about allowing circumcision of girls or about forcing women to keep children they do not want.

What we want is to stop men from being forced to register for the draft, to allow boys to decide about what happens with their genitalia themselves, rather than having it be decided for them, and about allowing men to decide that they are not ready to be a father just yet.

These rights that we ask for are the same rights that women have already had for at least 40 years. Women fought for rights they did not have and fortunately that fight got them exactly what they wanted and more. Now men too want the same freedom and self determination that women have had for decades.

I think a more pertinent question than "who is to blame" is "why would you oppose men getting those same rights"? Is it retaliation because women could not legally get an abortion in the 50's of the previous century? Why must men who were not even born when Roe vs Wade was decided, suffer for that?

I'm gonna kill you because you killed my brother. Well, I killed your brother because you killed my brother. And around and around it goes.

I'm not going to argue about this with anybody any more because it is obvious some people just want to be angry and blame others and not really think about the issue.

Wars are started by men. Wars are mainly fought by men. If we weren't in a war, women wouldn't be able to shame men into fighting. Again, like I've said numerous times THERE ARE SHITTY WOMEN IN THIS WORLD. But men dying in wars and in dangerous jobs is not the fault of women. So why continue to bring up this issue?

Ok, so women can now vote and own property and have the right to their own body. Yay! That's what we were fighting for. Men already have these rights and to now say that women get MORE benefit from voting? You lost your credibility there. I'm one person with one vote and so are you. Male or female. How do I get more from my one vote than you? Circumcision? Really? This is the same as laws being passed that prevent a safe abortion or access to birth control to prevent the need for an abortion in the first place? Honestly?

I get that you're angry but you need to find another direction to aim your anger. I don't want more than you, but I also don't want less than you. I just want to be equal. And, for the most part I feel I am so I don't march in the streets or go to rallys or whatever. If men are getting a bad deal, I'd like to think I'd be among the first to try to change that. I want EVERYONE to have equality. Nothing MORE, nothing LESS.

"That's what we were fighting for. Men already have these rights and to now say that women get MORE benefit from voting? You lost your credibility there. I'm one person with one vote and so are you. Male or female. How do I get more from my one vote than you? "

No. As a male, I get one vote AND I HAVE TO REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT. As a female, you get one vote AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT. If you can't see how you have it better in that regard, you are hopeless.

"Circumcision? Really?"

Yes, circumcision. As in GENITAL MUTILATION. Oh wait, I forget, you need to add the word "female" in front of "infant genital mutilation" in order for a feminist to recognize it as a violation of body integrity.

You may have to register but there is no draft in this country at this time. Even if we had a draft, I can't and don't see this as women forcing this on men issue. And, I don't start wars with my vote. I vote for a politician who then does what he/she wants. I didn't want to go to war in Afghanistan or Iraq and most of my female friends didn't either. Men - George W Bush and Dick Cheney lied to congress to get them to go along with the war. Men started the Vietnam war. Men started WWI and WWII and ust about every other war. To drag some females who shamed men into fighting is BLAMING WOMEN for the least little reason. Again, if there wasn't a war there wouldn't be women acting shitty because of it.

Circumcision, at least the religious one is carried out by a rabbi which last I heard were overwhelmingly male and ONLY male up until recently.

You, as a father can stop a circumcision from happening. I don't see this as a women forcing something on men issue.

All these issues that were brought up in the article may be in need of fixing but couching it in an ANTI-FEMINIST rhetoric doesn't help the cause because it does make it seem like women caused the problem and therefore women should fix the problem when it is the other way around. Women getting rights, the rights I laid out, don't hurt men. They simply help women. End of story. Everyone hopefully benefits and I think MOST men see it that way. Their mothers, sisters, daughters and all other women are simply equal to their sons and brothers and fathers.

Last time I'll say it: If you don't want men dying in wars, being circumcised, needing better health care, then do something about it and stop blaming feminists for your problems. This is my ONLY point. Feminism has nothing to do with any of this except as someone to blame.

"Even if we had a draft, I can't and don't see this as women forcing this on men issue."

It's not a women forcing this on men issue.

But so flipping what?

It's STILL a men's issue. It's STILL a violation of men's right to their bodies and their freedom. It's STILL important and it STILL deserves to be addressed.

Same with war in general, same with circumcision, same with fathers rights and men's health. It doesn't matter that it isn't the fault of women. Not at all. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Red herring.

The reason it's couched in such ANTI-FEMINIST rhetoric is because feminists like you CONTINUALLY claim that there are no men's issues, that men are always privileged and never disadvantaged, and that we, as a society, should forever and always be engaged in making women's lives better while ignoring problems men face.

Erin Pizzey tried to gain attention for male victims of domestic violence - she was harassed and had her DOG KILLED by feminists. In Toronto a men's group tried to have a lecture on a college campus on men's issues - feminists pulled a fire alarm in order to disrupt it. Another men's issues seminar was scheduled and feminists sent death threats to the hotel it was to be hosted at.

Feminism is a problem because it doesn't just seek to benefit women, you're a problem because you can't accept the fact that there are ways in which men are disadvantaged and those disadvantages can and should be addressed. You just derail the conversation, whining that women aren't to blame.

that feminists have done. That is bad. I'm not now and have never been a person, woman, feminist who has ever said men don't have issues.

It is suprising that feminists are doing those things because they don't need to.

Men -- you're in charge. If you want to stop wars, you can. If you want to stop circumcision, you can. If you want to do anything, you can. Women can't stop you. Most will applaud you.

You say I'm the problem when I'm just trying to understand. Women aren't in charge so I don't understand why feminists would kill a woman's dog for her opinions. That seems like a false flag to me, but that's another issue.

I don't want to be "the problem." I want to be the solution. I want men to feel wanted and equal. It's just that I don't understand why they don't. All I want as a feminist is equality. And, as I said, nothing more and nothing less. I don't want you to suffer for me to have more.

The reason I scoffed at the circumcision issue is because women are actually harmed by genital mutilation. We can no longer have an orgasm. I've known a lot of men sexually and almost all were circumsized. All of them could orgasm. It is a false comparison. PLUS, if you don't want them, you can prevent them very easily.

Do you see the difference in what I'm saying vs what you're saying? Yes, men have real issues. I acknowledge that. What I don't get is the attack on women. Attacking feminism is just a way to attack women politically correctly. Women have even been so propaganized against feminism that they don't know what it means and are starting to deny they're a feminist. WTF? It is a movement that may have outlived its usefulness and if so, let's retire it. But, just as men have real issues, so do women and that is all feminism is working for. Unfortunately men are to blame for a lot of the issues that face women. Fathers are generally the ones who have their daughters circumsized. Mothers go along with it or they're killed. We're never going to agree on the degree of the problems faced by men vs those faced by women...because YOU'RE IN CHARGE. Like I said before, if you want to change things then change them. Women aren't stopping you. A few crazy ones may be but they don't have any power. Killing a dog just says CRAZY, not powerful.

Kind of puts the "patriarchy" into perspective, doesn't it? They assume men being critical of feminism is a way to attack women in a politically correct fashion (as if being critical of feminism is currently politically correct. Some nations are pushing for laws against such things), because that's what patriarchy is for them... the politically correct way to attack men.

Indeed. It reveals even more about their perspective: Feminists subscribe to a conspiracy theory (that men have intentionally subjugated women) while pretending to only be concerned with the well-being of women. So, when they say "Women's issues exist and should be addressed," what they mean is "Women's issues are mens fault and men need to take the blame and fix the problems men have created."

Hence, when someone says "Men's issues exist and should be addressed," what feminists hear is "Men's issues are women's fault and women need to take the blame and fix the problems women have created."

Because they try to disguise blaming men for everything as concern for women, they assume anyone showing concern for men is actually blaming women for everything (hence Happy Monkey's defensiveness, even though nowhere in the comments or article is there any mention of blaming women or feminism for men's issues).

That victim narrative, the idea that men have knowingly and intentionally oppressed women since the dawn of time, is the core of feminism. Feminists get so bent out of shape by anyone showing concern for men because acknowledging that men have disadvantages means having society question (and eventually discard) the "female oppression male privilege" model.

You really seem determined to impute malicious intent (accusations of blaming women) on the men in this thread.

The only person I really see blaming anyone is you--men fight in wars, but who starts the wars? MEN! Men work dangerous jobs, but who hires them? MEN!

There isn't a single comment in this thread that you seem to think is blaming women for these problems that is ACTUALLY blaming women.

>Last time I'll say it: If you don't want men dying in wars, being circumcised, needing better health care, then do something about it and stop blaming feminists for your problems. This is my ONLY point. Feminism has nothing to do with any of this except as someone to blame.

Secondly, I think it's interesting to consider the repeated assertion that men have ALL THE POWER. If men have all the power in our society, and have always had all the power, then isn't every single feminist victory attributable to men? I mean, if women really have never had any power, it must have been men who gave them the vote, and men who gave them their reproductive rights, and men who gave them the right to own property and file for divorce.

If it's true that men have, and have always had, all the power, then women can't possibly be given any credit for any of the progress we've ever made as a society (they were, after all, totally powerless).

Who has it worse, dog people or cat people. Who is the better person, a dog person or a cat person. Whichever side you're on you're never going to believe anything the other side says and after this post I will no longer respond to or even read any more of your posts. No one said men have ALL THE POWER and women have never had ANY power. This is you reading into this what you want me to be saying.

Women have been a lot more powerless than men historically but who cares now? I don't. Yes, we've been able to win our rights and freedoms working with men. We have to -- we're in this together.

If you can't see that I'm not against you then you truly are a sad human being who just hates and can't reason on your own.

You keep saying I'm not answering your questions or as Karen said I keep changing my tune when I've been singing the same song here over and over to the point I'm getting tired of myself.

You are the one who can't acknowledge that I've answered your question. You are the one who can't get through your head that I'm not a man hater. That goes against your worldview. Anyone who identifies as a feminist has to be exactly the same as the feminist man hater you have in your head. Anything contrary to that you can't accept.

Well, whatever. This whole exchange has left me sad and even more worried for the state this country is in. If we can't acknowledge that there is work to be done on BOTH sides, then we're doomed. I'm just going to go live my happy life the way I've chosen to. I'll continue to do what I can to help the men in my life live a better life and the women, too.

not that I think you really care is: DO AWAY with having to register for the draft. I'm with you on this one. I don't get why men have to register. We have a volunteer army. Both men and women are in it. If you don't want to register then have the people in charge (congress) to pass a bill doing away with it.

It isn't equal, but as I said, we don't have a draft so just having to register seems rather pointless.

It's sad and annoying how you're avoiding the question. I didn't ask what you think should be done about the draft, I asked how you can say men and women in America have equal voting rights when men have the reciprocal obligation to register for the draft while women do not.

Face it - men and women do NOT have equal voting rights. Men pay for their suffrage with the draft, women get it as an entitlement. Feminism is not about gender equality, it never has been and it never will be.

and annoying is that I've answered your question. I just haven't given you the answer you want. My answer is my opinion. As your beliefs are your opinion.

What is feminism about? I've defined it as I believe it to be and practice it. I wouldn't believe in it and I wouldn't live my life as a single woman if I believed differently. I wouldn't be able to if it wasn't for feminism as a movement. It took a lot for me to leave the religious enclave that is my family. I thank feminism for giving me the ability to live my life how I want to live it. Go to college. Buy a home. Not have children. Not HAVE to marry.

Feminism gave me choices. As a female, if I'd been born just 100 years ago, I wouldn't be able to live the life I live. I'd be "sold off" into marriage by my father. I'd be obligated to have children or at least wouldn't have a choice in the matter.

I can't see this men vs women thing as you see it. It doesn't exist in my opinion. As I've said, women didn't have rights that they've fought to obtain. We're trying to keep them now. The republican party is actively working against us at every turn. And this includes women in the republican party. This is a religion getting into politics issue for me not a men vs women issue.

To equate some of the issues you and other men have brought up to compare it to the very real suffering of women historically is a false equivalency. To compare not being able to vote because you're not looked on as a PERSON isn't the same as being able to vote and then having to simply REGISTER for a possible draft that probably won't happen again in our life time. Sorry, I really hate to continue to disappoint you but it's like you're using a camel to cart your stuff through the desert and then complaining about camels. You have the right to vote. You've always had the right to vote. That gives you a voice. Women used to not have a voice except through our husbands. I didn't want to have to have a husband in order to have a voice. How is that not worse than having to simply REGISTER for a possible draft?

I'm sorry for you if your life as a man is so damn hard. I'm sorry you have to register for the draft. I'm sorry you have to fight harder for your family in courts across this country. Blaming women and feminism doesn't win you any points because it sets up a false comparison between men and women that shouldn't even exist. That in my opinion DOESN'T EXIST.

How many times do I have to say the same thing in answer to you.

MEN ARE IN CHARGE. If you want things changed work through other men and stop blaming women through blaming feminism. It is a distraction to keep you hating and it is a false distraction. If you want change, you can get it. Women have managed to win a lot of rights we didn't have. We did it through working with men. Yes, there are some women who hate men. They're wrong to do that. I work to try to change that. But there are also men who hate women. And, they're just as wrong to do that. I'm not a woman who hates men. I'm a woman who's grateful I get to live my life the way I want to live it. If there is unfairness in this world for anyone or animals I will work to change it. Not just sit around angry at men for historical wrongs. It gets us nowhere.

But you're not with on this one. You're actually opposed to s, on a visceral level. This whole conversation began with you seeing such facts pointed out, and reading some kind of blame aimed at women that wasn't there... and then asserting that it wasn't women's (or feminism's) fault, it was men's, as if that somehow means it isn't an issue worth discussing. You dismiss the issues men face, including this one, by laying the blame on men and thus, not your problem. So no, you are demonstrably NOT with us on this one, nor any other one, since you seem entirely unable to see men mentioning any issues they face (including this one) without finding some way to try and dismiss it. And the sheer number of times Drew has had to repeat himself in this regards only hits that point home.

If men are getting a bad deal, I'd like to think I'd be among the first to try to change that. I want EVERYONE to have equality.

I am very glad to hear that - in fact - we seem to be in absolute agreement, Happy Monkey!

As you say, since men are getting a bad deal, you stand with us in wanting equal rights for men, and I very much appreciate your support. We both want is equal rights for all genders.

It is true as you say that a woman's vote is weighed the same as a man's vote. But what you probably missed from my post is that for men, the right to vote comes at a price, one that women do not have to pay. If a man has to pay 10 dollars to get a cola and a woman has to pay only 5 dollars to get a cola, that is not equality simply because they both get the same amount of cola.

I am not just saying "men are conscripted" as an independent issue that is worth, say -5 points while the right to vote is worth 5 points in some arbitrary system I came up with either: it is actually a legal fact that men can forced into conscription for the specific reason that they have the right to vote. The supreme court has ruled, around WW1 if I recall correctly, that since men get a say in the way the country is run (since they have the vote), it is just and lawful for the state to demand their military service in return, and even to execute them should they refuse.

As you said, since men are getting a bad deal here, you stand with the Men's Human Rights Movement in wanting equality!

I did not say that a right to safe abortion is the same as the right to safety from genital mutilation. Both are important, and I support both.

Rather, what I am saying is that women have, by law and by morality, an inherent right to integrity of their body. And obviously they should! We fought very hard to get that far and we have made tremendous strides in the right to self-determination in the past centuries.

Unfortunately, men in western society do not yet have the same legal protections that now protect women, for the law allows boys to be mutilated without them being able to consent to this.

Now, you may think that it is not a very serious breach of their rights and I would agree the matter is not on the same level as the right to proper medical care, including the option of safe abortion, in case of pregnancy.

However that does not mean that we cannot wish for young boys to have the same legal protection against parents mutilating their genitalia that girls have. It does not matter if it is a significant or an insignificant operation, the point is that people have a right to decide for themselves whether or not they want their bodies modified. Women have that right, men do not, by current law.

As you said, we want equality for everyone, nothing more and nothing less. So you again stand with the Men's Human Right Movement in wanting that equality.

The right to legal paternal surrender, where a man chooses not to be a father, is exactly identical to the right a woman has to give a baby up for adoption, for example as an alternative choice if she does not want an abortion. Again, this is a right that women have which men do not: the right to choose not to be a parent.

Legal paternal surrender does not interfere with a woman's right to choose. She gets all the options she already has, with no extra restrictions. Obviously if she wants to keep the baby she can and if not, she can too. All we want is men to be able to opt out of fatherhood in the same way that women can opt out of motherhood by surrendering their parental responsibilities.

Since you want equality, nothing more nothing less, I know that here too you stand with the Men's Human Rights Movement.

As you said, if men are getting a bad deal, you'd like to be amongst the first to try and change that. What Warren Farrell in the article and I myself, are saying is that men are, in fact, getting the bad deal you describe.

We give explicit examples of how men are getting the bad deal: the draft, genital mutilation and legal paternal surrender, as area's where men's rights lag behind women's rights. We don't care who is to blame, we simply want to improve the world by making it more equal for everyone.

I understand that there are many area's where women still have steps to make. And there are also other area's where men still have more steps to make. We all have our own problems and by trying to solve one set of them, we are not invalidating the problems others have.

What is different is that the rights I described are entrenched in our legal system. Legally men lack certain rights that women do have. A key step in true equality (and nothing more and nothing less) is to change the law so that it no longer places heavier burdens on men while affording them fewer rights and legal protections.

You said that you "get that I am angry", but the fact is, I am not angry (sometimes text can make it seem that way ^_^). My reason for being part of the Men's Human Rights Movement is not because I am upset with the state, nor because I believe I have been wronged nor because I was hurt by someone.

My reason for being in the Men's Human Rights Movement is the same one you described.

I was born well after women's suffrage was introduced, but had I been born a century before this one, I would have been on the barricades to demand the right to vote! Since I live now, I can only fight the (smaller but no less important) social injustices we face today.

Like you, I hold this truth to be self-evident. That all people, women and men, are created equal. And that if one gender is getting a bad deal, that it is my moral obligation to try and change that. Currently, men are the ones getting the worse deal.

I hope I have made you see why I believe this and that you will join us in the fight for true equality for everyone. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think your comments about abortion rights are extremely insightful. As a woman, I recognize how unfair it is for the Catholic Church to demand that a woman carry a child to term, even if it could harm her health. In the same vein, how is it fair that a woman can choose to have an abortion even if the father wants to have the child, or conversely, if she wants to keep the pregnancy and the father wants to terminate it and then must be financially responsible for the child? I think we do need to work on the rights of men in cases of unwanted pregnancies. What is their responsibility if they used protection and the woman ends up pregnant and chooses to keep the child? Obviously, because it is her body, no court would force her to terminate, but perhaps the father could appeal to have his parental rights and responsibilities terminated?

To this point, I think we do need to recognize that there are some natural limitations to equality in nature. For example, women tend to have excellent lower body strength, but weak upper bodies. This is most likely because of child bearing needs. Conversely, men tend to have stronger upper bodies and weaker lower bodies. This is probably for hunting/gathering purposes. It's a tough pill to swallow, but there are some distinct differences in men and women that naturally drive social differences.

I have to disagree with the male circumcision comment, however. Apples and oranges. Female circumcision is designed to make sex extremely painful and ultimately control the behavior of women. Removing the clitoris and labia is extremely painful and can lead to infection, shock, difficulty urinating, etc. The tiny clitoris has 8,000 nerve endings; the entire penis has 4,000. Male circumcision was designed to make men closer to their God (religious reason) or to make the area cleaner, not deter them from having sex. Studies have shown lower rates of HIV contraction in circumcised men versus uncircumcised men. Circumcised men can still fully enjoy sex; a circumcised woman will find sex beyond painful. The reason why circumcisions are not commonly done in adulthood is because adult men are slower to heal and the pain is extreme. Perhaps parents should allow boys to decide whether to be circumcised, but at the very least, it does not cause the damage that female circumcision does.

Our society needs to work harder to equally protect men and women though. For example, men should get as much paternity leave as women, although perhaps there should be a week or two added above and beyond for women for medical recovery purposes.

I think the important thing to remember is that men and women are never going to be perfectly "equal," but as a society we should strive to afford equal opportunity of choice when it's possible. The whole feminist movement was about choice, not the right to work. I think men should be given choices as well. Implementing the concept may be tricky, but we need to do a better job with it.

Abortion is a good example of that fact. "How is it fair that a woman can choose to have an abortion?" Because due to nature, it's the female body that carries and bears the child and all the risks to health and life that pregnancy entails.

How is it fair if the man doesn't want a child but the woman chooses to keep it and he becomes financially responsible for the child, even if he uses protection? Again, nature is 'unfair'. Every time a man has sex, contraception or not, there is the potential that he may get a woman pregnant and that he will have no control over her subsequent choices. There's nothing that can be done about that due to simple biological reality, ie. women get pregnant, not men. He therefore has two choices. Don't have sex, or have sex and accept all the possible consequences. His choice. That is as fair as it's going to get due to simple nature. We can't be forcing women to go through pregnancy or abortion or deny children financial security because a man regrets his freely made choices.

"How is it fair if the man doesn't want a child but the woman chooses to keep it and he becomes financially responsible for the child, even if he uses protection? Again, nature is 'unfair'."

There is absolutely nothing about "nature" that forces one person to provide for another against their will. "nature is unfair" would actually work better to support the idea of a man just walking out and NOT being forced to pay. Government enforcement of child support is actually very unnatural, and it's very unfair. There is absolutely nothing opposed to nature about legal parental surrender. unless "natural" mans "in women's best interests" in your eyes.

" Every time a man has sex, contraception or not, there is the potential that he may get a woman pregnant "

yeah, because pregnancy is ENTIRELY on the man. I'm curious... do you use this reasoning to support your pro-life stance as well? Or are you a complete hypocrite and advocate for abortions for women, despite the fact she "KNOWS" that any time she has sex, there is the potential she could get pregnant?

"There's nothing that can be done about that due to simple biological reality"

Correct. But there is nothing biological about child support payments, nor the state enforcement of it.

" Don't have sex, or have sex and accept all the possible consequences."

Why exactly isn't "have sex and make clear to any woman you will not support any pregnancies that occur, and then let her choose whether she wants to participate knowing full well the risks herself, as well as that she will not benefit from any financial support should a pregnancy occur and should she choose to keep it?

"That is as fair as it's going to get due to simple nature."

Again, government enforced child support has absolutely nothing to do with nature. of course, the paternalistic pandering to women's demands is more in tune with nature, so I get why you're pushing this angle. But it's transparent self interest, nothing more.

"We can't be forcing women to go through pregnancy or abortion or deny children financial security because a man regrets his freely made choices."

Why not? She knew the risks when she had sex too. And in nature, newborns are abandoned by their parents all the time. Hell, in the US, the government even set up the safe haven abandonment option because too many women were abandoning their newborns in dumpsters and the government didn't want to punish women, so they made it legal under certain restrictions. So why exactly don't men have an equivalent? Oh, that's right... women are the ons who are important in our society. contrary to feminist assertions.

Men and women are both full participants in policing gender roles. How many women do you know that would be willing to have their husband stay home with the kids while they worked two jobs? Very few, I imagine (although, to be fair, that is beginning to change).

Women demand that men earn more so they don't have to.

Women also demand that men go to war so they don't have to. Are you familiar with the white feather campaign, whereby British women would walk around the streets and publicly hand white feathers to any draft age men in civilian clothes to shame them into enlisting during WWI?

I am not laying sole blame at the feet of women for the disposability of men, but they are not innocent bystanders either.

" When men talk about "men's issues" they bring up the fact that more men die of this and that...don't live as long as women, etc. as if it is the fault of women."

"as if it is the fault of women"... where exactly are you getting this from? Most times men are discussing their issues, blame isn't even a factor. Reading blame into these discussions is likely a result of your own need to assign blame to every outcome, or perhaps your desire to dismiss the issues by blaming men fr their own problems.

"It is an observation that leaves me wondering "what is your point?"" The point is that it's happening, that the constant oppression claimed regarding women is also felt by men, in other respects. That the blame, shame and derision constantly heaped on everyday men is unreasonable and undeserved. Men commit suicide 5x more often than women, 12 times more during divorce. Stating as much isn't to blame women for those numbers, and to see otherwise shows a disturbing trend towards forcing a dichotomy as well as personalizing things beyond reason. It is a fact, nothing more. There are causes, but those are part of a more nuanced discussion. But what stating this fact does point out is the claim that "the patriarchy" is designed "for the benefit of men at the expense of women" doesn't play out as advertised... meaning ether those pushing this idea of patriarchy are ether inept, or thoroughly believe that men, as a whole, are inept.

"These jobs also pay a damn site better than being in the secretarial pool."

Which kind of explains away (a chunk of) the gender pay gap, don't you think? IE, a good reason to bring the statistic up that doesn't require any blame in order to make it relevant to the gender discussion.

"I'm genuinely asking who are they blaming and why?"

And you're being asked why blame is such a crucial and necessary factor? Why does blame need to be assigned to someone, specificaly one gender or the other, in order for this information to be relevant?

"Women didn't set up the system."

No? Women being the ones to raise children, to instill values and social expectations/norms played no part in how society developed? Seems a little misogynistic to accept such a perspective.

"If you're complaining about how bad men have it, it mainly falls on deaf ears (of women) because we don't see you as having it that bad, at least in the aggregate."

That's not entirely true. There are many women that do see what men endure, and see it as a problem. The real problem is those or are so self absorbed they are incapable of showing compassion or empathy for men, for "the other" they've created as an adversary... much as you're doing here. The fact you can't see men as having issues worthy of consideration speaks more to your own selfishness than to the actual state of affairs.

"Yes, there are some shitty women out there who use men. Guess what? There are some shitty men out there who use women"

But by and large, the laws protect the women, both the ones being used AND the ones doing the using. And where the laws don't, societal pressures and feminists do. A woman just confessed to trying to hire a hitman to kill her husband, and she got 120 days jail sentence... while in Florida, men now can be put into jail for 6 months (that 180 days) for wearing their pants too low/saggy, because that is apparently indecent (imagine the feminist outrage should a woman's outfit be deemed criminally offensive)

"Men seem to be retaliating against women for wanting to be EQUAL at least in the eyes of the law."

What about men's reproductive rights? What about men's right to equal access to government survives (men have no access, they have to sign up to selective services to "EARN" access)? What about equality under the law (men suffer a greater sentencing disparity than blacks do over whites)? Just as a couple examples.

And do you seriously see pointing out this inequalities as "retaliation"? Because somehow, I actually think you do, and that's a rather disturbing perspective to have... though not at all surprising given my experience with other feminists.

I'm curious, do you blame men, as a class, for all those rights you didn't have, since you seem to have such a focus on laying blame?

I don't see why, just because some elite men are responsible for the culture, that means that suffering of other, lesser-ranked men isn't relevant. That's like saying that we shouldn't prosecute male-on-male murder because it was a male harming another male. It's utter stupidity. First of all, both men and women are responsible for cultural norms (I find it incredibly interesting that women claim they hold up "half the sky" for all positive aspects of culture, but as soon as you mention a negative aspect, suddenly their culpability disappears and they are just poor, beleaguered, downtrodden people who had nothing to do with culture at all). Women push their husbands and sons into dangerous jobs. Suffragettes in England sexually shamed young men into going and dying for them in the World War (seriously, this happened. Look it up. It's called the White Feather Campaign. They used to sexually shame teenaged/underaged boys to go enlist in the army and die so that they could be comfortable at home).

I don't see Warren Ferrell blaming women, or anyone for that matter. He's simply reporting the situation as it appears from an awakened male perspective. By personalizing it and then dismissing it, you are making a straw-man argument that allows you to avoid addressing the issue. If a man responded as you just did, you'd call it a ploy to protect his privilege. Well, there are some areas in a sexist culture in which women are privileged. This is one. Are you willing to give it up for the sake of equality if need be?

As a man (50) with both a sister and a daughter, I feel it should be stated a man is made more "attractive" by his income and assets as a provider. If two men of average looks and height were standing in a bar, one in new clean Walmart clothes and the other in elite brands, which would be rated the best catch?

I started my life in construction, why? I had average education, but as a keen sports player with a strong back and keen eyes. Construction paid very well compared to other employment, at 18 I had a nice car, good clothes and disposable income. Many college girls "Liked me". At 24 I went to University, my parent forced me to do night school in Construction. As a 24 year old with no income I became less attractive to the same college girls that I was dating all the time when working. This is nothing against women, I would say to my sister when she dated a non working man or my daughter to find someone who works. Risky employment pays more and this improves the chances of reproducing with a better looking or educated woman.

This is biology to some degree. Also men like risk more. When young I drove fast and the girls in the cars loved it, and those that didn't preferred accountant types.

I really wish we could talk about men's issues as they are, without constantly always comparing to women. Lack of health services is a real problem on its own, not because women live longer and have more specialist healthcare options. Workplace deaths and reluctance to introduce better safety measures is a problem with the workplace and the industry, and has little to do with the jobs being male dominated. Poor support for dads is an issue on its own, not only compared to mums. Let's start looking at parents as parents, instead of separating dads' and mums' roles.

Women who do prostitution get sick, injured, contract diseases or are assaulted, raped or murdered at disproportionate rates to women and men in the general population. However, most men are quick to point out that these women 'choose' to be prostitutes and those are simply the consequences of their choices. So, I think men should stop playing the victim and suck it up. You make your choices like everyone else.

"However, most men are quick to point out that these women 'choose' to be prostitutes and those are simply the consequences of their choices. So, I think men should stop playing the victim and suck it up. You make your choices like everyone else."

Correct. and all the while government and women's groups are bending over backwards allegedly trying to protect those women (all the while making it harder and more dangerous by making it a criminal act, but only for the men who partake, forcing it even further underground).

"You make your choices like everyone else."

Except, of course, when conscripted, as many boys are worldwide. I find it odd how rare "you make your choices like everyone else" is used by the feminist camp or traditionalists to dismiss the accusations of the wage gap. Oh, that's right... those outcomes negatively impact women, so their own choices shouldn't be used against them. You realize the whole reason these things get brought up isn't so much to complain about then as to prove EVERYONE makes choices, and each of those choices has consequences. The fact women don't happen to like many of the consequences of their choices is not evidence that women are oppressed, since most men don't like dying ether. So it's generally hypocritical to tell men to "suck it up" for daring to point out women's aren't the only ones to suffer unpleasant consequences.